Interview with the "Seattle weapon snatcher".

[1371JarHead]

You could call him a solid citizen. Problem is THIS: I will assume he is NOT a cop with a badge. If something goes wrong during his weapon snatch and someone gets killed...they would hold HIM responsible. He would lose his guns, his right to own a gun...and would go to prison. Unless you are a cop, this behavior should be discouraged.

This is a case of a nice guy doing a good thing...for all the wrong reasons. If you want to be a cop, you should fill out the app, not bypass the technicalities and try to do the job anyway.

So your the kind of guy that would just stand around watching someone getting the 2HIT beat out of them, and because your not a LEO, you do nothing, nice to know, this guy did the absolutely the right thing.

 

[titsonritz]

Post here too...
Security Guard Disarms a rioter with a stolen Police AR-15

also...

 

[EPS]

Post here too...
Security Guard Disarms a rioter with a stolen Police AR-15

also...

Lol this has been posted 3 or 4 times .
I think I posted it twice.
Lol.
Got to love alcohol.

 

[EPS]

Anyway it's a good interview worth the time to watch it

 

[mkwerx]

cracks me up when some folks suddenly think background checks and transfer laws are appropriate, and should be enforced.

One of the best ways to get bad laws overturned or voted out is to strictly enforce them. Those who have been videoed breaking the law, were the ones championing the law. They need a first hand account of its application. Then they can sue to over turn the bad law. Win win for all of us, unless they loose, in which case the armed thugs who have been recorded assaulting people wind up with extra charges. Still not seeing a big down side there.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

I believe in the 2A for sure. I also believe anyone who wants to own a weapon should be trained in its use, should not be able to buy one at a gun show without a background check, and that the Feds should make the rules, not fifty states all making their own separate rules. It causes confusion and discord more than anything else regarding ownership. Too many fingers in the pie, too many hands in the cookie jar. No one can agree on anything and it becomes a bureaucratic mess in the courts.

It was the Federal government who came up with the 2A. They should make all the rules for everyone. Easier to get changes that way as well.

The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the federal government out of the gun regulation business—as in "shall not be infringed"—and to let the States handle it. For nearly 80 years after the adoption of Bill of Rights, which includes the 2A, none of it applied to the States. Only after the post-Civil War 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 did the courts begin the slow, decades-long process of applying the Bill of Rights to the States via "incorporation".

Also, the Founders deliberately created a system where significant power was retained by States in order to ensure they could check the power of the central government (see the much neglected and abused 10th Amendment). The Founders rightly feared concentrated power and by restricting the power of the central government hoped to give the people a greater say in their own governance as required by republican principles (see Const. Art. 4, Sect. 4). "[C]onfusion and discord", as you put it, is a design feature, not a bug.

Under the Anglo-American tradition of common law there should be few, if any, gun regulations in America. There should be no background check laws, training requirements, or concealed carry permit requirements. Until 1993, there was no nationwide system of background checks and the Republic did just fine and, so far as I know, there have never been any federal training requirements for civilian firearms ownership.

So, you can believe what you want and advocate for what you want. However, your scheme is inconsistent with the US Constitution, our heritage of freedom, and common sense.

 

[Knute]

The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the federal government out of the gun regulation business—as in "shall not be infringed"—and to let the States handle it. For nearly 80 years after the adoption of Bill of Rights, which includes the 2A, none of it applied to the States. Only after the post-Civil War 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 did the courts begin the slow, decades-long process of applying the Bill of Rights to the States via "incorporation".

Also, the Founders deliberately created a system where significant power was retained by States in order to ensure they could check the power of the central government (see the much neglected and abused 10th Amendment). The Founders rightly feared concentrated power and by restricting the power of the central government hoped to give the people a greater say in their own governance as required by republican principles (see Const. Art. 4, Sect. 4). "[C]onfusion and discord", as you put it, is a design feature, not a bug.

Under the Anglo-American tradition of common law there should be few, if any, gun regulations in America. There should be no background check laws, training requirements, or concealed carry permit requirements. Until 1993, there was no nationwide system of background checks and the Republic did just fine and, so far as I know, there have never been any federal training requirements for civilian firearms ownership.

So, you can believe what you want and advocate for what you want. However, your scheme is inconsistent with the US Constitution, our heritage of freedom, and common sense.

Awesome...

 

[206thsense]

"shooter rughi" on Instagram.

He can also be seen in a green hoodie in this video of this crazy mob harassing and following Brandi Kruse on the night of June 8th in "CHAZ".

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=600727890649078

Dude kept her from being hurt, raped, or worst. 100% American hero.

 

[Lilhigbee]

Why do people ignore Article VI of the Constitution?? It was there before the Bill of Rights and certainly there before the 14th Amendment, yet it is ignored.
It states very specifically that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. We don't need the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's a horsesheite argument.

I made the important part easy to read;

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

[SquirrelSlayer]

Security contractor needed a bullwhip and FD should have fired up the water cannons to sweep the street.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

Why do people ignore Article VI of the Constitution?? It was there before the Bill of Rights and certainly there before the 14th Amendment, yet it is ignored.
It states very specifically that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. We don't need the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's a horsesheite argument.

Whether it is needed or not the 14th Amendment is as much a part of the Constitution and as much "the supreme law of the land" as Article 6. That's the way things work under Article 5. The legislators who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so because they thought newly freed slaves would be deprived "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and denied "equal protection of the laws" without it. The history of Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, etc. suggests they were on to something.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

Security contractor needed a bullwhip and FD should have fired up the water cannons to sweep the street.

Fire departments in the 1960s learned a hard lesson that if you partner with law enforcement in taking action against rioters you become a soft target and can no longer perform your primary functions. That still happens today but not nearly as much as it once did.

 

[ericjahr69]

Our good guy actually seized two ARs. The first one had been fired by the bad guy. He smartly gave up when looking down the barrel of this ex Marine's Glock.

No such thing as ex-Marine!
Once a Marine, Always a Marine! Semper Fi, do or die!!!

 

[Member 38805]

There's far too many people these days who stand by doing nothing out of fear of legal reprisals, or whether they're "authorized" to react! I'm sick of hearing how people watch bad things happen, and then excuse themselves saying they didn't react because they feared they might be sued, or arrested.
Does anyone really think the police would arrest anyone for stopping a thief from stealing their weapons? And if things can go wrong, is that really a reason to not react? Things can go wrong if you simply stand by too. And if those guns were used later to kill police officers, or innocent civilians, I guess those who stood by and let the guns be stolen can live with that?
There was a time when people did what was right simply because it was the right thing to do, and they were in a position where they felt they could do it. But today there are far too many who standby and simply tell themselves it's not their problem, or they don't want to get involved. Pretty damn sad to me.

 

[raputnam]

We can all armchair quarterback over this but none of us were there. Considering the level of anarchy going on though he had his head screwed on right. He saw punks looting a police cruiser and grabbing weapons. If I was was witness to that I can't say that I would have done anything differently. If one of the punks would have tried to make a stand and point the weapon at him he would have been justified in returning fire.

Return fire, or return pointing?

 

[raputnam]

No such thing as ex-Marine!
Once a Marine, Always a Marine! Semper Fi, do or die!!!

I've known a few ex-Marines, and not all of them are so honed and righteous hero machines.

 

[Knobgoblin]

You could call him a solid citizen. Problem is THIS: I will assume he is NOT a cop with a badge. If something goes wrong during his weapon snatch and someone gets killed...they would hold HIM responsible. He would lose his guns, his right to own a gun...and would go to prison. Unless you are a cop, this behavior should be discouraged.

This is a case of a nice guy doing a good thing...for all the wrong reasons. If you want to be a cop, you should fill out the app, not bypass the technicalities and try to do the job anyway.

He's a marine.

My tax dollars are well spent by the United states marine corps.

My tax dollars are not very well spent by Washington state.

 

[Greyboy]

This guy is a Marine on protection detail for a news agency. The 1st AR on his shoulder was taken because Antifa took it & started opening fire on a burning cop car. His training went into action. Once a Marine always a Marine. The 2 Antifa members that grabbed the AR's & there families should give thanks to this man. He could have simply take out the threat once the first open fired on the car due to proximity to him, plus the police would have shot them for sure. But his training went into action. I commend this mans actions. He was a sheepdog among wolves a deserves praise not criticism.

 

[Greyboy]

 

[Defense Minister]

You could call him a solid citizen. Problem is THIS: I will assume he is NOT a cop with a badge. If something goes wrong during his weapon snatch and someone gets killed...they would hold HIM responsible. He would lose his guns, his right to own a gun...and would go to prison. Unless you are a cop, this behavior should be discouraged.

This is a case of a nice guy doing a good thing...for all the wrong reasons. If you want to be a cop, you should fill out the app, not bypass the technicalities and try to do the job anyway.

If the nuts running that s**thole city have their way, there won't be any cops there!